Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[rr1213]

While the KJV is certainly not known for the purity of its translation, its usage of ‘repent’ for μετανοεω and and ‘repentance’ for μετανοια is closer to the Greek. The DRB is evidently pursuing a more free translation, on the basis that penance should follow “thinking again”, which is what repentance and μετανοια both mean.

As regards the translators, I presume that you mean the translators of the other early versions of the Bible into Latin, because, at least insofar as I am aware, Jerome worked alone.

I’ve also read that when Erasmus produced a new latin translation of the bible that he disagreed with the translation of the Vulgate that rendered John the Baptist’s admonition as “do penance” as opposed to “repent”. The Church relied on the “do penance” translation, in part, to support its position regarding penance and purgatory. Erasmus avoided major conflicts with the Church on this issue because he believed that there were other sufficient grounds to support the Church’s position apart from this particular mistranslation.

Source: The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch (don’t have the page number with me, but it is in the section of the book relating primarily to Erasumus).

amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/sr=8-1/qid=1159455229/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4797640-8404953?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Mom_of_5]

I have ordered several copies of “Where We Got The Bible”, Our Debt to the Catholic Church,by Rt. Rev. Henry G. Graham. This is a must to give friends and relatives who insist that the Catholic’s changed the Bible or are not allowed to read the Bible. This small book, 159 pages, was written in1911 and has been re-printed many times. Every Catholic who finds it necessary to defend the faith from time to time, should have this in their arsenal.

Love and peace,

Mom of 5

 

[scylla]

How can someone so educated lie so blatantly, most anyone who has read St Jerome knows that he accepted the longer canon as was the Church’s decision. He protested initially and that is what most people cite, but ignore his acceptance and defense of the Deuterocanonicals.

How can you write about St. Jerome and ignore “Against Rufinus 11:33” unless you are dishonest or just plain ignorant, and he cannot claim ignorance as that is what he was studying and writing about.

Wow, this is an interesting quote from the original poster,
Scylla

 

[NotWorthy]

How can someone so educated lie so blatantly, most anyone who has read St Jerome knows that he accepted the longer canon as was the Church’s decision. He protested initially and that is what most people cite, but ignore his acceptance and defense of the Deuterocanonicals.

I think it’s called “drawing the graph, and then plotting the points”. It seems to be common in refuting Catholic History.

 

[Steadfast]

I’m just pointing out that while it is often said that Luther “removed books from the Bible” (when in fact he did not, his edition of the German Bible contained the Deuteros), the fact that it was, afterall, Jerome, a Saint, who did in fact remove them provides a rather rich irony.

 

[Steadfast]

If anyone can provide some evidence that Dr. de Hamel is wrong and that Jerome, having been prevailed upon by Pope Damasus, translated and included the OT Deuteros in his Biblia Vulgata, I’d be very happy to see it.

I’ll even forward the information to Dr. de Hamel himself.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’m just pointing out that while it is often said that Luther “removed books from the Bible” (when in fact he did not, his edition of the German Bible contained the Deuteros), the fact that it was, afterall, Jerome, a Saint, who did in fact remove them provides a rather rich irony.

Correction: Jerome questioned the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals. He did NOT remove them. After a dispute, he bowed to Papal Authority and kept them in.

It would be up to your Dr. Hamel to produce a Latin Vulgate that does NOT have them in them to prove that they were removed and then crept back in over time. This should be easy to do, since there are 100’s, if not 1000’s of them still in existence.

 

[NotWorthy]

If anyone can provide some evidence that Dr. de Hamel is wrong and that Jerome, having been prevailed upon by Pope Damasus, translated and included the OT Deuteros in his Biblia Vulgata, I’d be very happy to see it.

I’ll even forward the information to Dr. de Hamel himself.

Are you looking for something like this:

Jerome

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).

 

[Steadfast]

Jerome’s answer to Rufinus was written four years before he completed the translation of the Old Testament. He was answering him with regard to commentaries he began writing back in the later 380’s.

As Dr. de Hamel points out, Jerome’s attitude toward the OT apocrypha underwent a change as he went about his work. This change of opinion altered the outcome of his work such that Latin texts he had prepared for parts of Tobit and Judith from the Greek were now jettisoned in favor of translation directly from the Hebrew manuscripts he had at the time. His growing confidence in the essential canonicity of those texts had led him to the conclusion de Hamel outlines.

The idea that an unquestioned expert in the field should have to produce something which no longer exists in order to substantiate his claim is, well, novel.

 

[NotWorthy]

Does Dr. de Hamel claim the main motive of Jerome’s dis-taste for the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals due to their lack of a Hebrew text?

Are you sure there are no first generation Latin Vulgate’s still running around? I thought there were still a few in existence.

 

[Steadfast]

Does Dr. de Hamel claim the main motive of Jerome’s dis-taste for the canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals due to their lack of a Hebrew text?

It’s a combination really, the pure liguistic aspect has something to do with it but also his working with Rabbi’s and being impressed with their opinions as well.

Are you sure there are no first generation Latin Vulgate’s still running around? I thought there were still a few in existence.

What would be needed would be not a first generation copy, but an original Hieronymian Manuscript.

 

[NotWorthy]

What would be needed would be not a first generation copy, but an original Hieronymian Manuscript.

OK, I’ll go look in the basement.

 

[NotWorthy]

What would be needed would be not a first generation copy, but an original Hieronymian Manuscript.

No, it could be a first generation copy. Your opening thesis seems to indicate that St. Jerome was dead when these books started “creeping” in.

For your professor to be sure of this, there would have to be proof that in the year X there was the addition of 1 or 2 of the Deuterocanonicals. Then in the year X plus Y, there was the addition of 1 or 2 more. Until finally there were the 7 books.

How would the good professor know this if there is no proof.

 

[Mystophilus]

How can you write about St. Jerome and ignore “Against Rufinus 11:33”

The Wikipedia article is incorrect. The reference is 2:33. Presumably, the writer was confused by the Roman numeral.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

OK, I’ll go look in the basement.

 

[Mystophilus]

(All the emphases throughout are mine.)

From Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

There are three stages of Jerome’s work of Scripture Translation. The first … a.d. 382–385 … he translated only from the Greek—the New Testament from the Greek mss., and the Book of Psalms from the LXX. The second … still from the LXX., but marked with obeli and asterisks the passages in which that version differed from the Hebrew: the third … a.d. 390–404, in which he translated directly from the Hebrew. The work of the second period is that which is now before us. The whole of the Old Testament was translated from the LXX.

During different periods of his life, his translation methodology changed. As De Hamel notes, in the earlier years, Jerome translated from the LXX, including the deuterocanonical texts, but, in the later years, Jerome translated only from the Hebrew, not including the deuterocanonical texts. This is presumably De Hamel’s basis for saying that Jerome ‘excluded’ the deutero texts.

However, Jerome says something interesting in his letter (112) to Augustine (75), in AD 404, the year in which he ceased translating:

19… In another letter you ask why a former translation which I made of some of the canonical books was carefully marked with asterisks and obelisks, whereas I afterwards published a translation without these. You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for the former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew.

Note that Jerome has just referred to multiple translations, and to an early edition from the LXX as being different from the Hebrew but as still being of canonical books. We have multiple editions, but the LXX, which means also the deutero texts, is still canon. He continues:

But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve rather the exact sense than the order of the words… Do you wish to be a true admirer and partisan of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. If, however, you do this, you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which has not these interpolations.

Here, he is advising Augustine that an attempt to be true to the LXX will involve disagreement with the churches.

20… in my attempt to translate into Latin, for the benefit of those who speak the same language with myself, the corrected Greek version of the Scriptures, I have laboured not to supersede what has been long esteemed, but only to bring prominently forward those things which have been either omitted or tampered with by the Jews, in order that Latin readers might know what is found in the original Hebrew. If any one is averse to reading it, none compels him against his will.

The “corrected Greek version” is the version freed from the heretic Theodotion’s asterisked interpolations. It is still the LXX, and it still includes the deutero texts, which Jerome has included but marked so that Latin readers can see the differences between the LXX and the Hebrew. He says that no one has to read this, thus allowing for the presence of multiple versions.

… As to the principles which ought to be followed in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, they are stated in the book which I have written, and in all the introductions to the divine books which I have in my edition prefixed to each; and to these I think it sufficient to refer the prudent reader.

Here, he refers to his prologues, the same prologues which make specific reference to the deuterocanonical texts and to his doubts about them.

De Hamel says that Jerome “now eliminated these books from his definitive edition of the Old Testament and he downgraded them as apocryphal”, which is true, but we must remember that Jerome did not suppress or even repudiate the earlier edition. He had a shorter edition which he preferred, but he still produced the longer edition which the churches demanded.

Thus, it is less accurate to say that the deuterocanonical texts “found their way back in again” than that the longer version continued to be the more popular, while the shorter faded from view until the Protestant Reformers revived it in the C16th.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

In terms of which is a better translation from the Greek, it is undoubtable the Vulgate, considering the close proximity of Latin and Greek, the knowlege of the Church Fathers who made the original translations into Latin of Greek (many were Greek themselves, as opposed to the Englishmen who translated the KJB).

Being Greek themselves is interesting to note, however, did they speak and understand the same form of Greek that was used in the Greek NT manuscripts? (Koine Greek)

 

[Chris_LaRock]

While the KJV is certainly not known for the purity of its translation, its usage of ‘repent’ for μετανοεω and and ‘repentance’ for μετανοια is closer to the Greek. The DRB is evidently pursuing a more free translation, on the basis that penance should follow “thinking again”, which is what repentance and μετανοια both mean.

As regards the translators, I presume that you mean the translators of the other early versions of the Bible into Latin, because, at least insofar as I am aware, Jerome worked alone.

I like my DRB. I went through a lot of trouble in finding a decent copy at a good price.

I was under the impression that the RCC put ‘penance’ in there to imply that doing good works is more important than repenting and asking God’d forgiveness. As if we could bypass Christ and attone for our own sins through our own good works.

 

[DShreffler]

I like my DRB. I went through a lot of trouble in finding a decent copy at a good price. .

I found one at the Goodwill store. It seems like every time I go in there I find Catholic books.

 

[Mommyof02green]

The Bold Print below is a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.

I like my DRB. I went through a lot of trouble in finding a decent copy at a good price.

I was under the impression that the RCC put ‘penance’ in there to imply that doing good works is more important than repenting and asking God’d forgiveness. As if we could bypass Christ and attone for our own sins through our own good works.

So if the above is a misunderstand. What does the Catholic Church Teach. Well read the quote below to see.
Pillar of Fire; Pillar of Truth:

What You Must Do to Be Saved

Best of all, the promise of eternal life is a gift, freely offered to us by God (CCC 1727). Our initial forgiveness and justification are not things we “earn” (CCC 2010). Jesus is the mediator who bridged the gap of sin that separates us from God (1 Tim. 2:5); he bridged it by dying for us. He has chosen to make us partners in the plan of salvation (1 Cor. 3:9).

The Catholic Church teaches what the apostles taught and what the Bible teaches: We are saved by grace alone, but not by faith alone (which is what “Bible Christians” teach; see Jas. 2:24).

When we come to God and are justified (that is, enter a right relationship with God), nothing preceding justification, whether faith or good works, earns grace. But then God plants his love in our hearts, and we should live out our faith by doing acts of love (Gal. 6:2).

Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life (Rom. 2:6–7, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10, Matt. 25:34–40).

Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?” (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21–23, 19:16–21).

We do not “earn” our salvation through good works (Eph. 2:8–9, Rom. 9:16), but our faith in Christ puts us in a special grace-filled relationship with God so that our obedience and love, combined with our faith, will be rewarded with eternal life (Rom. 2:7, Gal. 6:8–9).

Paul said, “God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work” (Phil. 2:13). John explained that “the way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3–4, 3:19–24, 5:3–4).

Since no gift can be forced on the recipient—gifts always can be rejected—even after we become justified, we can throw away the gift of salvation. We throw it away through grave (mortal) sin (John 15:5–6, Rom. 11:22–23, 1 Cor. 15:1–2; CCC 1854–1863). Paul tells us, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

Read his letters and see how often Paul warned Christians against sin! He would not have felt compelled to do so if their sins could not exclude them from heaven (see, for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10, Gal. 5:19–21).

Paul reminded the Christians in Rome that God “will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life for those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness” (Rom. 2:6–8).

Sins are nothing but evil works (CCC 1849–1850). We can avoid sins by habitually performing good works. Every saint has known that the best way to keep free from sins is to embrace regular prayer, the sacraments (the Eucharist first of all), and charitable acts.

To read more from Pillar of Fire; Pillar of Truth see: catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp